Current and Past Cases
|
Some of our current and more recent cases include the following kinds of cases: FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (“FLSA”) WAGE AND OVERTIME CASES FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (“FLSA”) WAGE AND OVERTIME CASESMartin & Bonnett is currently litigating and investigating several industries for overtime and Fair Labor Standards Act violations including:
If you would like more information, or believe you are entitled to overtime or compensation you have not been paid, contact our experienced FLSA overtime attorneys, at (602)240-6900 or call 1-800-952-9750. Wildflower Bread Company (Rose)Description: Who may be in the class? How to join the FLSA class action and obtain more information: Network Infrastructure Corporation (Nelson)Description: Who may be in the class? How to join the FLSA class action: Klement v. Sierra Vista Regional Health CenterAn FLSA class action lawsuit was filed by Martin & Bonnett against the Sierra Vista Regional Health Center on behalf of employees and former employees, for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and Arizona’s wage law. The FLSA Class Action Complaint alleged that Sierra Vista Regional Health Center employees were improperly being denied wages and compensation for meal times and rest periods during which they were required to be Aon call.@ Martin & Bonnett was successful in obtaining a substantial settlement for the class. ERISA PENSION AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS CASESMartin & Bonnett has litigated and is currently litigating numerous individual and class action cases regarding employees and retirees of state and local employers and large companies such as Honeywell, Motorola, Lockheed Martin, John Deere, collectively bargained plans, and employers in the dairy industry, the financial service industry, defense contractor industry, medical industry, technology companies, security companies, and pharmaceutical companies. Martin & Bonnett is committed to serving employees and retirees Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust (Becker)Description: Status of CaseThe parties have entered into a settlement agreement providing for over $7,000,000 in pension benefits for class members. The Court has preliminarily approved the settlement and will hold a hearing on March 12, 2010 to determine whether to give final approval to the Class Action settlement. If you are an active employee or retiree in the Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Fund and had your benefits suspended for working in non-covered employment or were notified on or before October 31, 2009 that your benefits will be suspended for working in non-covered employment, you should have received a notice regarding the proposed class action settlement. Contact one of our experienced ERISA pension attorneys at (602) 240-6900 for further information. If you are a member of the class, you may be eligible to have all or a portion of your benefits that were suspended for working in non-covered employment reimbursed with interest. Honeywell Retirement Earnings PlanDescription: The Partial Settlement resolved the claim that Defendants violated ERISA’s anti-cutback rule by eliminating the fractional reduction to the SBA offset for participants with more than 35 years of service. However, 3 ERISA Claims were not resolved in the partial settlement:
Status of Case: Lyell v. Farmers Group Inc. Employees’ Pension Plan Loewy v. Retirement Committee, Plan Administrator of the Motorola, Inc. Pension Plan, After years of making phone calls and sending letters which proved to be unsuccessful, Mr. Loewy came to Martin & Bonnett for legal assistance. A Class Action Complaint was filed by Martin & Bonnett. In May 2005, Motorola Inc. agreed to settle the case for $11.3 million. For more information, please see the article in the Wall Street Journal about Mr. Loewy: Retiree Runaround: Trying to Challenge A Benefits Decision. Dominguez v. Retirement Benefit Plan for Salaried Employees of Asarco Inc. and Asarco Pension BoardA Class Action Complaint was filed against Asarco Inc. by Martin & Bonnett, on behalf of a group of former employees of Asarco Inc. who were participants in the Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees of Asarco Inc (“Pension Plan”) and who were laid off. The Class Action Complaint alleged that Asarco violated ERISA, by failing to pay and/or by delaying payment of Plaintiffs’ “70/80” Pension Benefits, which were unreduced early retirement benefits. The ASARCO employees were laid off from ASARCO following a reduction in the work force at Asarco Inc.’s Tucson operations, after about 30 years of service. The Class Action Complaint demanded that Asarco, Inc. make Plaintiffs and class members whole by paying all 70/80 Benefits owed under the Pension Plan with pre-judgment interest and by paying interest to class members whose 70/80 Benefits were withheld for more than 60 days. Martin & Bonnett was able to get the Plaintiffs the benefits they were entitled to from Asarco, Inc. -- while the class action lawsuit was pending, Asarco Inc. paid the Plaintiffs their pension benefits in full. Craven v. BP Retirement Accumulation PlanCorporate restructuring can shift the burden of paying retiree benefits from company to company, ultimately leaving retirees’ without a company willing to acknowledge responsibility for a pension and often leads to mistakes in calculating pension benefits for employees. In 2005, Martin & Bonnett represented a retiree that almost lost his pension benefits due to corporate restructuring, Charlie Craven. Mr. Craven, a retired mine supervisor, had been receiving a pension for 18 years and was 79 years old when he received a letter from the BP Retirement Accumulation Plan (“BP”) that stated he had received his retirement benefits in error and had accumulated an overpayment of $18,363.44. After Martin & Bonnett became involved and demanded that Mr. Craven’s benefits be reinstated, Mr. Craven received a letter from BP reinstating his pension benefits. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASESMartin & Bonnett has represented a wide variety of plaintiffs in cases alleging unlawful discrimination and retaliation, including cases against large and small employers, alike. We have also been class counsel in class action cases alleging discrimination: Race and National Origin Discrimination Cameron v. Arizona Board Of RegentsMartin & Bonnett filed a Complaint against the Arizona Board of Regents (“ABOR”) on behalf of Theresa Cameron, an African-American former professor of Arizona State University (“ASU”), and other former minority professors. Cameron was the first African-American woman to be awarded tenure in ASU’s College of Design’s School of Planning. However, after being diagnosed with a medical disability, Cameron began experiencing some hostility from Defendant ASU employees. The Defendant ASU employees set in motion a series of events intended to discredit Dr. Cameron and orchestrate her dismissal. After months of unsuccessfully requesting disability accommodations, Cameron was removed from her position at ASU. ASU alleged Cameron’s dismissal was for “just cause” due to the fact that she had plagiarized a syllabus and engaged in retaliatory conduct against two students. The Complaint alleged ABOR has discriminated against Plaintiff by ignoring and refusing to implement any of her ongoing requests for reasonable accommodations for her disability, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. The Complaint also alleged that ABOR was denying Plaintiff’s due process and equal protection rights by failing to hold any grievance hearing, by failing to hold the dismissal hearing within the required time limits, and terminating Plaintiff while retaining as a tenured professor, a similarly situated Caucasian male who had been accused of plagiarism. ABOR has discriminated against Cameron and denied her due process and equal protection under the law because Defendants have treated Plaintiff disparately because of her race. This racial discrimination lawsuit seeks immediate reinstatement for Cameron, an award of damages against Defendants for the violations alleged herein, including, but not limited to, compensation for lost and future wages and benefits including pre and post-judgment interest, compensatory damages, and mental anguish and emotional distress damages. Phoenix Magazine: ASU'S TRUE COLORS Puente v. State of Arizona (Arizona Department of Transportation) Noriega v. City of Scottsdale Gender DiscriminationGender Discrimination and FMLA Suit Against Large Computer Corporation Plaintiff claimed that the computer corporation engaged in an unlawful employment practices prohibited by Title VII by retaliating against Plaintiff by failing to hold Plaintiff’s position of Regional Manager open during an approved leave of absence. The Complaint also alleged that Compuware violated the Family Medical Leave Act. The case resulted in a favorable settlement for the employee. Pregnancy DiscriminationPregnancy Discrimination Against Real Estate Management Company Pregnancy Discrimination Against Financial Services Company DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION CASESGribben v. United Parcel Service, Inc. The District Court granted in part UPS’s Motion for Summary Judgment and upheld a jury verdict in favor of UPS. Gribben appealed that decision in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the District Court erred in determining at summary judgment that Gribben was not disabled within the meaning of the ADA. DISABILITY AND HEALTH BENEFITS CASESGould v. Lockheed Martin Corporation Martin & Bonnett brought successful claims for disability and health benefits against a wide variety of employers and insurance companies. Martin & Bonnett handles claims and appeals to the insurance companies and to the employers and in litigation. |
